Brief Facts

In the first administrative decision, the Immigration Appeal Division ("IAD") of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada ("IRB") ruled that Mr. Earl Mason, a foreign national, could be found inadmissible under s.34(1)(e) if his alleged violent conduct were established. Mr.Mason allegedly shot a gun and wounded two people when he was assaulted during a fight at a bar. Charges against him were stayed and he was not convicted of any criminal offence. In the second administrative decision, the Immigration Division ("ID") of the IRB followed the IAD's interpretation of s.34(1)(e) in Mr. Mason's case and ruled that Mr. Seifeslam Dleiow, a foreign national, was inadmissible under s.34(1)(e) for acts of violence against two intimate partners. It was not alleged that either Mr.Mason or Mr.Dleiow engaged in acts of violence with a link to national security or the security of Canada.

Applicable Law

The statutory provision at issue,s. 34(1)(e) of theImmigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27("IRPA"), provides that permanent residents and foreign nationals are inadmissible to Canada on "security grounds" for "engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada". The key point of disagreement among the administrative decision-makers and courts below is whether the "acts of violence" listed as "security grounds" in s.34(1)(e) require a link to national security or the security of Canada, or whether s.34(1)(e) applies to acts of violence more broadly even without such a link.

SCC Decision

In the result, I agree with my colleague's disposition (para.123). I would allow the appeals, set aside the decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal and allow the applications for judicial review. In Mr.Mason's appeal, I would quash the IAD decision thus restoring the ID decision. In Mr.Dleiow's appeal, I would quash the ID decision and deportation order.

After reading the case, answer these two questions:

1. Is this judgment is a "step forward to raise the threshold of what constitutes a threat to national security?
2. Was the Supreme Court correct in its application ofVavilovstandard?